Wether Republican or Democrat, every American should be appalled by the brash accusations of Geraldine Ferraro. As one of the leaders of the Democratic party, and a superdelegate in the upcoming convention, Madeline Ferraro continues to disgrace her party each time she speaks. A few weeks ago I wrote about her opinion that the superdelegates were indeed "super", as in superior to the other members of the party. On Friday an interview was printed in which Geraldine Ferraro basically dubbed Barack Obama as an affirmative action candidate, with nothing to offer other than his skin color.
"I think what America feels about a woman becoming president takes a very secondary place to Obama's campaign - to a kind of campaign that it would be hard for anyone to run against," she said. "For one thing, you have the press, which has been uniquely hard on her. It's been a very sexist media. Some just don't like her. The others have gotten caught up in the Obama campaign.
"If Obama was a white man, he would not be in this position," she continued. "And if he was a woman (of any color) he would not be in this position. He happens to be very lucky to be who he is. And the country is caught up in the concept." Ferraro does not buy the notion of Obama as the great reconciler.
Wether or not Ferraro buys into the notion of Obama being the "great reconciler" is irrelevant to the fact that it is her opinion Obama is only successful because of his skin color. This type of identity politics has plagued the Democratic party and will continue to do so until it's leaders focus on issues more than skin color or gender.
Regardless of Obama's skin color, he is an eloquent speaker in the mold of Bill Clinton who has the power to excite a crowd. Mrs. Ferraro seems to believe that if it were not for his skin color however, Americans would not accept him as a serious candidate due to his lack of experience. She neglects the fact that Hillary Clinton suffers from the same shortfalls as Obama with that regard, as the majority of her "experience" stems from her being married to a successful politician, rather than being successful in her own right. Should we then assume that had Hillary Clinton not slept with the former President she would not be in the position she is in?
Wether we like it or not, this type of identity politics is with us to stay for the remainder of the primary season. As Ed Morrissey points out:
Ferraro and the Democrats can't make a much better case for Hillary to be President than they can for Obama. That problem will remain with them regardless of which candidate eventually wins the nomination, and despite Ferraro's protests, neither will win it on the strength of experience or on policy. The Democrats have gone all-in for identity politics at the expense of both, and Ferraro's complaints ring very hollow indeed.
There is an old saying that beauty is only skin deep. For Democrats voting in this years primary, their choice is just as shallow.
Original article
recommend
Facebook
Twitter
bookmark 
print
Comments: 37
Woman or black? Is he black? Are we going back to slavery days and the "one drop rule"?
Wait a minute. How about a woman and a black?
Even better! How about the woman who is losing in delegates and has been mud slinging be at the top of the ticket and the black who has won the most delegates and campaigned without getting dirty as the vice president!
Hillary Clinton gets vote because she is a woman.
If Hillary Clinton was not Mrs. Bill Clinton, the democrats would have called the race after 0-11. She would have been forced to bow out on the grounds that mathematically you can't win, the only way you can win is to destroy the party, party comes before individuals. They would have called on the supers to go Obama way now which would put him real close to 2025. The only reason this is not happening because they don't want to piss off feminists and she is Mrs Bill Clinton
Why complain dumocrats?
African American conservatives have been voting against their core values for years, voting democrats, because they are told the GOP was racist. I did not hear you complaining. Now they are voting one their own "Nahhh, you have to vote on the issues, vote your principles". What a bunch of hyprocryt!!!!!
Exactly my point Christene. It's not about just his pigmentation. If they were waiting for a black candidate, they had it, a few times.
You tell me first VIABLE black candidate. What makes him viable?
Those are facts.
Fact is he raised 55 million in 29 days. From African Americans?
He won Alaska, Iowa, North Dakato, Idaho, Nebraka, Maine, Wyoming, Hawaii, Utah, Colorado, Washington State, Vermont, Delaware. You telling me he did so because in those states "the urban vote gets a disproportionate percentage of delegates, and blacks disproportionately live in urban areas"
You said a lot of states. He won 24 and I listed 13 states. 13 states where the black vote is insignificant to non existent. That's ridiculous.
He won states with less than 2% of African American population.
He won states with at most 45% African American
He won more blue states
He won more purple states
He won more red states
He won more states, PERIOD.
http://www.alankeyes.com/
The youth and african americans are "caught up in the concept" of having a black president.
You've been saying the media has a bias against Clinton. We will find out this week.
As someone who has often been described as a white liberal I think white liberal guilt has played a part in Obama's support. While some liberals may feel some guilt at their failure to support a female candidate, we live in a culture were being a sexist is still more acceptable that being considered a racist. The person who askhim/herself if they would vote for Obama if he were white are being labeled racists but it is considered acceptable to ask a Hillary supporter if he/she would would be supporting Hillary if she were a man. Ignoring a candidate's other qualifications or lack thereof on the basis of a candidate's race or gender is wrong no matter which side you are on.
I don't consider Ferraro's remarks racist at all. It's a valid question. Would he be here if the media did not fall in love with him day one? Part of the reason they did is his pigmentation. The other reason, bigger than race, is his speeches. The media likes good talk, that's what they do, Talk.
What about Clinton? Nancy Pelosi and other women are more accomplished than she is. She is running because she is Mrs. Bill Clinton. Nobody would care about Hillary Rodham.
Let's be honest. Race and Gender are big part of BOTH OF THESE candidates.
Lefties are never honest. That is a problem.
Of course he won in states with large AA population (SC, Georgia, Louisiana, and probably Mississippi tonight
Also, Hillary won Michigan and Florida handily. I know that those states did that to themselves, but that fact can't be ignored in a contested convention
Does Hillary's gender and Obama's race play a role? Clearly it does for those who don't bother to take the time to listen to them. To vote for or against either of them because on superficial sex or color is a sign that our country still harbors those who either take pride in their ignorance, or perhaps are simply too ignorant to see that they are ignorant. In this case, the race card, and the gender card, have both been played by the same campaign that has continued to show that it will manipulate the minds of men and women, as well as the media, to get what it sees as their divine prize. When the power of ideas doesn't work, simply toss out some innuendo or play on the fears or prejudices of the American populace. Are we that dumb not to notice?
Truth is that each of the candidates has strengths and weaknesses in policy and experience. And frankly they aren't necessarily what the campaigns have tried so hard to convince us they are. As President, each would staff their cabinets and agencies with advisors who are experts in various issues (e.g., foreign policy, health care, the economy, etc.). The best President would ensure that they had alternative viewpoints included so as to get well rounded guidance (at least we can hope for this following the ideological selection process of the current administration). The job of the President is to listen to all sides, then make an executive decision (hence the Executive Office of the President). In the end, the President makes policy and provides the leadership to move policy forward. The details are up to the staff. Anyone who suggests they have "the plan" that will pass through Congress unchanged is 1) a liar, and 2) an ideologue. Think for a second - would you trust a plan put together by one campaign during election season? Of course not. You would want to have input from all sides - pro and con, conservative and liberal - in order to get something workable. Even a good plan will require significant more tweaking to get something that is truly feasible, never mind passable.
Let's focus on reality here. Hillary's race and Obama's gender are irrelevant [yes, I did that on purpose]. Anyone with a brain knows that. Those who haven't been listening too closely for a while might still get confused by the manipulation inherent in one campaign, but I'm hopeful that it has already gotten so transparent and utterly absurd that all American's will see it for what it is - an arrogant belief in familial destiny. It's time to move on people. Time to elect someone who won't continue the divisiveness. Someone who will at least make the effort to serve in the best interests of the people rather than themselves.
"Oh, woe is me, I'm losing because the media is biased against women and the media is coddling the priviliged black man. The media gives me the hard questions and offers him a pillow. Life is so unfair to me, so make me President."
Please. Hillary is quite capable. She is the wry behind Bill's wit. She is the manipulator behind Bill's charisma. She is the reason Bill became President despite his daliances. [For the record, I like Bill and I even think Hillary would be a great Senator if she didn't quit after losing her shot at the Presidency, which is, after all, the only reason she became a Senator in the first place] But do we really, really want to have someone whose major strength is the ability to manipulate to be our next leader? Do we really, really want someone who 1/2 the country will work hard to thwart her every move? Do we really, really want someone who claims she is "tough enough to fight with the Republicans on day one?" I personally would want to elect someone who will have at least a good chance of working with Republicans. Of working with Independents (who a recent poll showed would vote for McCain before voting for Hillary). Of restoring the faith of the international community in the American people (as opposed to a dynasty).
We, the people, complain about Washington all the time. My family and friends who do not reside and work in or around DC remind me that the rest of the country wants someone who will be more interested in keeping them in mind than fighting the petty Washington turf wars. If we elect Hillary, we guarantee at least 4 more years of turf wars. Do you really, really want that? Do you really, really insist that we abdicate our responsibility as citizens to make sound judgments in electing our government representatives and then hold them accountable?
He just insulted right wingers Rush Limpaugh and Lou Dobbs and Dobbs went ballistic, called him a "panderer" "Who does he think he is" and accused him of having no class.
I was expecting the producers of CNN to quickly go to commercial or drop a stage light on him.
It is taboo to insult a black person but a woman, well it's just like a rap song, beyotch
I agree with you, David K, 100%
Not at all. Here is why. They keep talking about the Clinton years. The economy was good and that is what they want to remind us of. Now we need to remember that nothing got done for a full year with the scandals, the hearing, and congress voting on impeachment. So yes, remind people of everything that happened during the Clinton years. Not just of the good things.
From politico.com. Here is what Ferraro said about Jackson.
If Jesse Jackson were not black, he wouldn't be in the race," she said.
Really. The cite is an April 15, 1988 Washington Post story (byline: Howard Kurtz), available only on Nexis.
Here's the full context:
Placid of demeanor but pointed in his rhetoric, Jackson struck out repeatedly today against those who suggest his race has been an asset in the campaign. President Reagan suggested Tuesday that people don't ask Jackson tough questions because of his race. And former representative Geraldine A. Ferraro (D-N.Y.) said Wednesday that because of his "radical" views, "if Jesse Jackson were not black, he wouldn't be in the race."
Asked about this at a campaign stop in Buffalo, Jackson at first seemed ready to pounce fiercely on his critics. But then he stopped, took a breath, and said quietly, "Millions of Americans have a point of view different from" Ferraro's.
Discussing the same point in Washington, Jackson said, "We campaigned across the South . . . without a single catcall or boo. It was not until we got North to New York that we began to hear this from Koch, President Reagan and then Mrs. Ferraro . . . . Some people are making hysteria while I'm making history."
Any doubt she is going after any black candidate and will do it again?
Wonder how African Americans will vote now. 97% Obama? They should!
In Clintonspeak, that means he becomes more qualified to be Vice President!
I still say, that if the race comes down to the wire, the Party will look at how many Electoral College votes a candidate will/could pull against McCain in the general election. The number of states won in a primary doesn't matter, electoral votes do.... Clinton has won all the big states in this count, and they (Party leadership) have to be considering that....
Now let's see she took Ohio and most likely Penn. Gotta give it to her. That's a big deal. He took Virginia, Missouri. He can put Mississipi and southern states in play because of the black vote and choice of running mate. Iowa will be in play (see turnout). When you look at the purple states Obama won, that argument falls apart.
In 2000, if Gore had won Tennesee, forget about Florida. He would be president. So it's really misleading to talk about big states. Talk about swing states she won (Ohio, probably Penn) and we can start talking.
If you are going to base it on electoral college votes add up the states they won. I know Hillary is ahead. Do the math by giving both of them CA NY and MA. John McCain will NEVER WIN those 3 states.
Virginia, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Missouri, Iowa. He's got a counter argument too.
Party leadership only care about who can win. True. She can't. Because a big part of the democratic party will stay home or vote John McCain if this pledged delegate lead holds and it sure will. Look at how many delegates Obama picked up by slaughtering her: only six!
I say they will "consider" that above, because it played a big part in why the Party created the current 800 odd superdelegates in the first place for close primary races. Current Party leadership may not think that way..? Why bother with them then? It IS all about Party power. You may be right, and I have read articles on why it may not be a given, but I'm still sure behind closed doors it is being discussed.
The Republicans use the winner take all for the most part because it so closely mirrors the electoral college in my mind. Definitely a simpler process, though like anything, not necessarily better, just different. The Democratic process is so confusing, state to state, most people don't get it...
Take care.
Truth to be told, Hillary is as much an "affirmative action" candidate as Obama. Ferraro should think before she speaks.